Re:laptop hell

[Bill Ashline <bashline@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "dan latorre" <dan@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [microsound] Re: laptop hell

Thanks for your comments Dan:
_________
> Yes, all theory is not bad, but
being dogmatic about particular theories can be though... <
-------
Being dogmatic about anything can be pretty annoying to other people.  It 
isn?t necessarily bad, but just annoying, depending on how much power the 
dogmatic person exercises
---------
> [Post-Modern Thought]
It is the central and essential tenet of post-modernism that "all the
world is text".<
---------
I think it?s a mistake, Dan, to assume that all critical thought about 
?texts? is ?postmodern? or that all ?postmodernists? theorize texts in the 
same way.
----------
> Given that not all on this
list come from a comparative literature or cultural studies background
in some way, it seems worth pointing this out in more explicit form<
-----------
True, not everyone does.  Nothing wrong with that.  But for the discussion 
to move forward, we?re going to have to come to some agreement on the 
definition of terms.
------------
> I also think it would be helpful to share how post-modern theories are
currently thought to be:
- they are very useful critiques of corporate-capitalist cultures
- they are useful and updated definitions of what it means to be
literate about all we experience in culture, not just "literate" in
terms of reading and writing visual phonetic speech, aka text.<
----------
Again, Dan, I?d say we should be a bit careful (or perhaps explicit) about 
what we say is ?postmodern?.  Not all theory is postmodern nor does it 
conform to your description.  These descriptions are too general to get at 
all the phenomena?a problem with reductionism.
------------
> [Post-Modern jargon "Text"]
Maybe 'script' is a better word as it implies
the passive following or overlaying of something, of obscuring stuff in
a generally rigid way or at best theoretically playful enlightening way.<
----------
I?m not sure about ?obscuring? or being ?playful? but some people prefer the 
term ?network? rather than the rather confusing term ?text?.  Gayatri 
Spivak, for instance.
-------
> [Objective Knowledge]
Post-Modern's view that "all the world is text" generally has made the
case that objective knowledge or experience is impossible or
un-knowable. This critique has both helped the evolution of the
scientific method and hurt it, depending on the ideological dogmatism of
the claim.<
-------------
Some theorists have thought about ?science? as such.  A lot work in the 
social ?sciences? where the methods of science do not so readily translate.  
Theorists and scientists can find things on which they agree (we all live in 
the world, after all), but interpreting the world and making claims about it 
is another matter.  And scientists tend to be a lot more tentative about 
their claims about the world than many social scientists or psychologists 
who act as though knowledge has stopped and all we need to do is fill in the 
blanks under the concepts.
---------------
> For example: evolution is fact and is an objective observation of
science, but natural selection and creationism are some of the "texts"
or "scripts" created to explain what has been observed.<
---------
Evolution is a ?theory? that is supported by research.  It?s a theory that?s 
superior to creationism because it takes into account the natural phenomena 
of the world and ultimately doesn?t exclude the possibility that the 
evolving world might have also been ?created.?  ?Creationism? as a ?theory? 
doesn?t get as much mileage.
---------
> many have assumed since the Enlightenment (without truly attempting to
find out) that human nature is individualistic, but actual objective
research as opposed to theory has proven that the human animal is in
fact social by nature and that the individuality is emergent.<
------------
?actual objective research? is not ?opposed to theory? unless one is oneself 
opposed to theory in favor of something called ?actual objective research 
that opposes theory.?  This is a circular argument that assumes theorists 
oppose research when in fact what theorists oppose is facile assumptions 
about what counts as nature.
---------------
> Anti-intellectualism is most noted by non-pluralism, and ideological
dogmatism; exhibited in many a post-modern "fundamentalist".  It seems
to be observable fact that any group that bases their views on "scripts"
or "master-texts" tend to have fundamentalist elements, religious groups
or otherwise, Marxist, Capitalist, Fascist, Post-Moderns, etc.<
-----------------
Could we cite some examples?  It seems pretty ?fundamentalist? in itself to 
assume that groups that ?base their views? on ?master texts? are 
fundamentalist.  According to this view, it would seem that just about 
everybody is a ?fundamentalist? for who doesn?t base their views on 
?master-texts? of one form or another?even the so-called ?unmediated? text 
of the world.
-----------------
> Post-Modern theory in part is heavily rooted in Linguistic theory. C.S.
Pierce is in fact one of the founders of modern linguistics that has
since branched out and mixed with the schools of thought in various
parts of the world<
-------------------
Pierce is not the only ?founder.?  There?s also Wittgenstein, Saussure, 
Humboldt, Chomsky, etc.  Which version of postmodernism do you refer?  A 
Derridean like Christopher Norris hates postmodernism.  There?s every reason 
to think that Derrida, Deleuze, and Foucault are very much opposed to 
postmodernism, whereas Lyotard and Baudrillard subscribe to certain modes of 
?postmodernism?.  Blanket assumptions are usually inaccurate, I?m afraid.
----------------------
> I've not read up on Amacher's theory, but I did *experience* and gather
that she has spent much time focusing on objective study of how human
hearing works. Our bodies are very real, not "texts", we are not
mind/body dualisms.<
---------
You?re assuming here that ?texts? aren?t ?real? whereas bodies are.  This is 
just ideology trying to come off as ?natural.?  Bodies are just as much 
?texts? as anything else.  Doctors are ?reading? bodies all the time.  We?re 
reading our own bodies all the time when we judge how foods affect us, what 
we like to eat/drink etc.  Sometimes these readings are made without 
sufficient empirical experience to make judgments that comport with how 
bodies will react to treatment.  The diagnoses then can become 
?misreadings.?  Sometimes a misreading leads to a malpractice suit.  
Sometimes a misreading creates an opportunity for further research and 
productive discovery.







_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx